|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Croatians and Croatans
The "Theory of Croatian origin" section I took out was as follows:
- Many of the early European expeditions to the western shore of the Atlantic finished with shipwrecks. So was the case with some Croatian ships from Dubrovnik in the 16th century. It is interesting to mention that the Croatan Indians in the USA could possibly be the descendants of the saved Croatian crew, as authenticated by their name, brown hair, blue eyes and some of the words in their language. Two large islands appear on the Molineaux map of Virginia, USA (1599), with the names Croatoan and Croatamonge.
- In attempts to find Walter Raleigh's Lost Colony inhabited by the British Empire in 1587 on the island of Roanoke (near the Croatoan island, North Carolina, USA), the searchers found a CRO carved in Roman letters on a tree in 1590. Another big tree had a bark peeled off, and carved on it in capital letters was the word CROATOAN.
- At the Lost Colony, Ribuckon (same meaning in Croatian) meant in Algonquin Indian a fishing place or fish; Cipo was mullet fish; Cante-Cante (Croatian word for song and dance) meant to sing and dance and Sat (means time in Croatian) was time. There were many other similarities. Gray eyes and blondish hair amongst the Indians was noted for centuries. Gray eyes and light hair is found in Croatia in great numbers and not found in any other Mediterranean people.
The reference given was: Eterovich, Adam S.: Croatia and Croatians at the Lost Colony, 1585-1590. I'll try to give some of my reasons for removing this section:
- No real attempt was made in the section to back up any claim of a Croatian origin of the Croatan. All it really says is Croatan Indians supposedly had light skin, blue eyes, and that the English mangling of their name sounds/looks similar to a common name in many European languages for "Croatian".
- This is definitely not a mainstream theory
- Only one "source" was cited as a reference; the source itself does not cite or make reference to any primary sources of any kind, or any other studies of any kind with similar conclusions. The source also appears to be non-academic.
- You can't include any (for lack of a better term) crackpot theories in an encyclopedia just by calling them "theories". If no, or hardly any, academics or experts support the theory, then it's not worthy of inclusion unless the fact that the theory exists is widely-known and thus the theory, while not accepted, is notable. This is emphatically not the case here.
Those are my primary reasons for removing the section. You'd need to provide good-quality, academic sources which demonstrate the notability and worthiness-of-inclusion of this theory, I think, and references which justify some of the individual claims made. If only one or two people are making this claim, it's non-notable. --Miskwito 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to add another note- it would be alright to include the "theory" if it could be demonstrated it was a very widespread legend, or had been very widely accepted at one point. That is not the case here.--Cúchullain t/c 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here is another reference from The Maryland Center for Civic Education web site. There are bunch of references all over the web about this theory. You just have to search for them. Even on Amazon you can find lots of books about this!
User talk:VelikiMeshtar 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I just found an online version of a journal article about this and some other related issues: here. I'm still reading through it, but it's well-sourced and was published in a journal, so I'm thinking it's a source I'm more willing to trust. I'll get back to you when I'm done reading it. --Miskwito 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
--VelikiMeshtar 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
i have to admit that this was the first thing that crossed my mind by intuition. however, i wasn't thinking they were a croatian ship wreck - this is interesting information. i was thinking they were english slaves of croatian descent. around that time period, there was a substantial slave trade from eastern to western europe, and many slaves in england of eastern european origin (the word slave comes from the ethnic group 'slav', which i suppose is only possibly defined as speakers of the slavic languages of eastern europe). if the colony was in fact primarily composed of croatian slaves, perhaps with a few masters, that would provide a reasonable explanation as to why the people in the colony fled to live with the indigenous peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. The site I linked to, which has the text of a well-referenced journal article, basically ends up stating that there are legends of Croatian sailors (from Dubrovnik) becoming shipwrecked off the American coast, but no actual evidence of any recorded incident, a legend around which there is apparently a good deal of uncertainty:
- "A Dalmatian legend is that ships from Dubrovnik sailed westward around 1540..."
- "What puzzles this writer is the question of why the Ragusan ships should have, sailed to unknown regions instead of sailing to Spanish America, where they had, as it is proved, frequent contact."
- "Various authors differ in the claim that such ships from Ragusa may have been wrecked off North Carolina. Even when there is agreement on this point, there is disagreement as to the time of departure."
- Furthermore, the story evidently given by the Croatan themselves concerning shipwrecks of Europeans was:
- "Twenty-six years before, (in 1558) a ship was cast away near Secotan, manned by white people; ... some of the crew were saved, and preserved by the natives; .. after remaining some few weeks at Wocokon (Ocraoke) they attempted to leave in the frail craft of the country, which they had endeavored to fit for the purpose, and probably perished, as their boats were subsequently found stranded ,on the shores of another island not far from Wocokon; the natives added that these were the only whites that had appeared among them, and that they were seen by the dwellers around Secotan only."
- A statement which seems to recur in many writings about this is something like "we can never know for sure". For example:
- Hamilton McMillan, quoted by the article I've been citing, wrote, "What may have been the origin of the tribe, known to us through the English colonists as Croatan, can only be a matter of conjecture."
- The article I've been citing also says: "The story that some Ragusan sailors were shipwrecked in the vicinity of Roanoke Island and subsequently absorbed by the Indians there is plausible. Lacking positive evidence to confirm this, we cannot, however, accept it as a historical fact."
- "We may speculate, but no one knows the positive answer to this whole mystery."
- Because of this, I'm worried that what's in the article now could constitute original research.
- I still haven't seen any real evidence that this theory is even known to--let alone accepted by--more than a handful of historians (nearly all of them, as far as I can tell, Croatians). For example, the following quote from the article implies that the majority of historians never address this theory (which would mean it doesn't really deserve inclusion in Wikipedia):
- "Most American historians while discussing the origins of the Croatans are concerned only with the question of whether the Roanoke colonists were absorbed by them and whether present day Croatans are descendants of those Indians and Englishmen. They completely overlook the fact, confirmed by the first English reports, that the traces of white race were found among the Croatans already before the arrival of the first permanent English settlers."
- The Oxford English Dictionary has the first citation of the term "Croat" being used in English as 1702--over a century after Englishmen applied the name "Croat(o)an" to the American tribe ("Croatian" is attested from 1555, however, so this isn't very strong evidence).
The conclusions I draw from this are as follows. First, there is very limited evidence, beyond legends, of any actual Croatians being shipwrecked in the New World (the Croatan Indians themselves certainly didn't claim to be descended from Europeans shipwrecked in the area only a few decades before--something you'd think they might mention). Second, even the proponents of this theory of Croatian origin admit that there is such little evidence that we can never know the answer for certain. Third, very few historians apparently even address this theory at all--it's a fringe view held by a handful of people who are mostly Croatians themselves. Given these facts, my opinion is that the inclusion of this section in the article here violates, at least to some extent, WP:OR and WP:NOTE.
However, these are just my views, so for now I'm going to leave the section in the article. Hopefully others will give their opinions as well, and we can reach a consensus. --Miskwito 22:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if they were Croatians from Dubrovnik, and not some of the minorities, they would most definitely have spoken Croatian. I'm not sure about calling themselves Croats though. Maybe they would have just referred to themselves as people from Dubrovnik.--Blancodio 18:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was a good decision to remove the theory since there is no scientific evidence to support it. However, I wonder if the linguistic similarities cited in that portion of the article are genuine, because if they are, that is a very interesting coincidence.--Blancodio 19:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I want to congratulate Miskwito for his research on this subject. This turn to be very prominent discussion, but I can not agree with your thesis that only american researchers and scientists have something to say on this subject. It's a little bit selfish...
There are a lot of theories that found their place in Wikipedia with even fewer proves. So I don't see why this theory is not worth to be included in the worlds biggest encyclopedia.
I have to comment Dewrad claim on Dalmatian language as totaly not true one. If you observe Dubrovnik history you would see that people there were croatians who speak Croatian. And that was for centuries enclave of croatian suverenity on Adriatic coast, cause Ventians ruled rest of Adriatic (accept Dubrovnik)!!!
Ragusa is Venetian name of Dubrovnik, people from Dubrovnik certainly would not called themselves Rugusan!!!.-- VelikiMeshtar 18:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to suggest that I think only American researchers'/historians' views in this area are important. What I'm saying is that a significant number of the historians and researchers in this area need to at least acknowledge or mention this theory for it to be included in Wikipedia. The only area where nationality makes a difference, I think, is if virtually only Croatian researchers mention this theory (which weakens the theory's claim to notability).
- As far as the "other theories with less evidence are on Wikipedia" argument goes, I'll point you to the policies at WP:FISHING and WP:WAX. Essentially, these say that you can't use that line of argument to claim that something should/shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. --Miskwito 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting discussion here. I am a Croat and heard about American indian tribe of Croatian origin. Today, I got an article about it, so started to Google it a bit. The reason why I am posting here is to correct some of the errors that Miskwito is posting and its widely known here. Ragusa is Venetian name for city of Dubrovnik. Inhabitants are Croatians since at least 7th century if not earlier as some new research is claiming. They call themselves Hrvati and they use Croatian language. Croat in Croatian language is "Hrvat". Italians do not pronounce 'h' so they call us Croati or in singular Croato. From Italian, English call us Croatians or Croats. In Croatian, to express that you belong to something you add - "an" at the end. So citizen of the city Split is Splic-an, of Trogir is Trogir-an. So, it is possible Croat-an or Croato-an to be of Croatian origin. Another interesting thing is that we Croats use CRO as an abbreviation for our homeland Croatia, same as found on the tree. Recently that is changed by international community to HR, but for centuries we used CRO. It would be very interesting to have Croatan indians join National Geographic geneology project. For $90 you can get your father ancestry. Croatians have distinctive gene and origin would be easily proven or disputed. And finally a question: If there are any preserved words of Croatan indian language, where can I find them? I hope I constructively added to your discussion. Please erase my post if you don't find it constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbenblue (talk • contribs) 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Croatian "theory" is back
A user has been adding this material back in. I have very serious doubts about the material and the sources provided. First, the way s/he had it formatted, all the cites were backing up the claim that light skin and hair has been reported in Croatians. I highly doubt that sources such as American Indians in North Carolina says that. It's impossible to tell which sources are supposed to give which information, and so it can't be told if this "theory" has any real backing from experts. I for one, highly doubt that it does. It sounds about as likely as the Croatan becoming to Lumbee, except that that theory is widespread, while this one is not. Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Lumbee "claimed to be Croatan"
I changed a paragraph from saying that the Lumbee "claimed to be Croatan" to state that the Lumbee were "thought to be descendants of..." I think this is a more accurate reflection of the history here when Henderson is considered. Henderson wrote in 1923 that "they violently resent being called Croatans... One Indian of whom I inquired why they so bitterly disliked to be called Croatans said "Croatan means nigger and is a fighting word with us." It's common knowledge that McMillan gave them this name from his Lost Colony theory, which may or may not be credible but the point is that the Lumbee ancestors did not give themselves this name. Jas392 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This Croatian nonsense has been added back yet again, again with absolutely no sourcing. Seriously, it's been nearly four years, this material is not appropriate for the various good reasons highlighted above. Stop adding it back.--Cúchullain t/c 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, you added one source with no discernible reliability, and did not even cite it properly. You're going to have to show that your source is reliable before your material can be mentioned. Even if it were reliable (I don't believe it is), the theory receives far too much weight. Seriously, you've been doing this for four years. If you add this again without gaining consensus on the talk page, you will be blocked for edit warring.--Cúchullain t/c 14:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is the part of the article that's being constantly removed: (at least here people can find some info about this theory)
- Please explain how that is a reliable source. Who is Adam S. Eterovich? Which source are you citing exactly, the book or the website? What is "croatianhistory.net" and what is its claim to be a reliable source? Etc. At any rate, the idea of a connection between Croatians and the Croatoan is handily dismissed, for instance here. As such it may be worth a brief mention that some people have proposed such a connection, but that it is dismissed.--Cúchullain t/c 16:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
An American writer John Lawson in his 1714 chronicle wrote that among Croatan Indians of that time there was a legend of a 16th century shipwreck with mariners who saved themselves and stayed with Indians.
Ragusa is Venetian name for city of Dubrovnik. Inhabitants are Croatians since at least 7th century if not earlier as some new research is claiming. They call themselves Hrvati and they use Croatian language. Croat in Croatian language is "Hrvat". Italians do not pronounce 'h' so they call us Croati or in singular Croato. From Italian, English call them Croatians or Croats. In Croatian, to express that you belong to something you add - "an" at the end. So citizen of the city Split is Splic-an, of Trogir is Trogir-an. So, it is possible Croat-an or Croato-an to be of Croatian origin. Another interesting thing is that we Croats use CRO as an abbreviation for our homeland Croatia, same as found on the tree.
At the Lost Colony, Ribuckon (same meaning in Croatian) meant in Algonquin Indian a fishing place or fish; Cipo was mullet fish; Cante-Cante (Croatian word for song and dance) meant to sing and dance and Sat (means time in Croatian) was time. There were many other similarities. Gray eyes and blondish hair amongst the Indians was noted for centuries. Gray eyes and light hair is found in Croatia in great numbers and not found in any other Mediterranean people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VelikiMeshtar (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cante-Cante is Spanish for song and dance. I am not aware of that term existing in any Croatian dialect. Sat is an arabo-turkism that would likely have come into Croatian later than the 15th century. Also, "ribuckon" means white perch while "tetszo" means mullet. Source: A Vocabulary of Roanoke: From the Writings of Thomas Hariot, John White and John Lawson. Tommy1441 (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Theory of Croatian origin - New development
Today (2012-06-24) an article appeared in the biggest Croatian daily... Google translate of the article
- http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/lcolon.html A.S. Eterovich: Croatia and Croatians, and the Lost Colony, San Carlos, CA: Ragusan Press, 2003
I moved this article back to Croatan from Croatan tribe, as Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Ethnicities is clear that "tribe" should only be used for groups at a sub-ethnic level. That isn't clearly the case here. There's also no real need for disambiguation, as this is the only article that's called just "Croatan".--Cúchullain t/c 16:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Part of the introduction currently reads: "The Croatan, like other Carolina Algonquians, suffered from epidemics of infectious disease, such as smallpox in 1698. These decimated the tribes and left them subject to colonial pressure. They are believed to have become extinct as a tribe by the early seventeenth century." If they were decimated by smallpox in 1698, they surely did not become extinct until the early eighteenth century. Or have I misunderstood something? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The whole page is in need of a re-write. Very little is referenced to any reliable sources. -- Asteuartw (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree..the whole Croatian discussion is obviously irrelevant which thankfully is out of the article however it`s taken up way too much space here..I agree the article is all over the place and not referenced correctly although there is plenty of good information in it..my main objection to all the articles regarding the Eastern Carolina Algonquians is that there is a lot of good current research out now that is not being included check http://www.lost-colony.com I`m trying to rewrite the Roanoke Colony article atm Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- somewhere in one of these articles is a reference to Croatoan being being a village not a tribal name...the modern town of Buxton was probably called Croatoan as was all of what is now Hatteras island south of the inlet just north of there which has since filled in most likely do to early undocumented deforestation and sea level rise..the dike along highway 12 isn`t helping much..to wherever the Hatteras inlet was located at the time..possible between Frisco [Trent] and Hatteras..the point being Croatoan was an oblong land mass at the time not a long skinny barrier island..the Croatoan territory may have included the entire Pamilico Sound area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Croatan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720101000/http://linux.library.appstate.edu/lumbee/16/WOOD007.html to http://linux.library.appstate.edu/lumbee/16/WOOD007.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.